CAPÍTULO II : MARCO TEÓRICO DE LA INVESTIGACIÓN
2.1. Teorías generales relacionadas con la investigación
2.1.2. Teoría general de la administración tributaria
This study examined the degree to which the role of the assistant principal is perceived to include instructional leadership behaviors. Specifically, this study compared the perceptions of elementary, middle, and high school assistant principals with those of principals and teachers. Research questions were developed in order to analyze these perceptions. Additional open-ended questions asked survey participants to elaborate on the types of activities that assistant principals typically spend the majority of the work day performing, what prevents assistant principals from spending more time on instructional leadership activities, types of professional development activities that would better prepare assistant principals to provide instructional leadership, and the extent to which experience as an assistant principal prepares these school administrators for the instructional
leadership role of the principal. The specific research questions for this study included: 1. What are the perceptions of assistant principals regarding their instructional
leadership practices?
2. What are principal perceptions of assistant principals as instructional leaders? 3. What are teacher perceptions of assistant principals as instructional leaders? 4. Are there differences in perceptions of assistant principals as instructional leaders
5. Does a relationship exist between experience/length of service at the position and the frequency with which assistant principals are perceived to practice
instructional leadership in their schools?
Internal Consistency
Internal consistency for all items within each subscale of assistant principal instructional leadership behavior was examined using Cronbach’s alpha. The reliability coefficients for all eleven subscales were in the acceptable range (0.80 or above), while alphas for seven of the subscales were excellent (0.90 or above) (McMillian, 2004; McMillan & Schumacher, 1993). Reliability coefficients ranged from a high of 0.95 (framing the school’s goals, supervising and evaluating instruction, and coordinating the curriculum) to a low of 0.84 (protecting instructional time). Additionally, the internal consistency coefficients for this study were consistent and compared favorably with the internal consistency coefficients from Hallinger’s (1983) original study. Table 6 represents the internal consistency estimates of reliability.
Table 6
Reliability Scores for Subscales of Instructional Leadership Behaviors
Domains of Instructional Leadership N Items Alpha
Hallinger’s Alpha (1983)
Framing the school's goals 1215 5 0.95 0.89
Supervising and evaluating instruction 1080 11 0.95 0.90
Coordinating the curriculum 981 7 0.95 0.90
Monitoring student progress 938 8 0.93 0.90
Protecting instructional time 926 5 0.84 0.84
Maintaining high visibility 916 5 0.85 0.81
Providing incentives for teachers 912 4 0.90 0.78
Promoting professional development 878 10 0.93 0.86
Developing and enforcing academic standards 867 5 0.88 0.83
Providing incentives for learning 864 4 0.87 0.87
Research Questions 1, 2, and 3
Research questions one, two, and three examined the perceptions of assistant principal instructional leadership practices from the perspectives of assistant principals, principals, and teachers. Participants responded to 70 behavioral statements that described job practices and behaviors of assistant principals relating to instructional leadership as measured by the Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale (Hallinger, 1983); the assessment instrument was adapted to study the instructional leadership behaviors of assistant principals.
Regarding Research Question 1, means for assistant principal responses ranged from a high of 3.21 (developing and enforcing academic standards) to a low of 2.33
not rate in the “almost always” range for any of the subscales, and assistant principals only rated themselves in the “frequently” range for three subscales (framing the school’s goals, supervising and evaluating instruction, and developing and enforcing academic standards). Assistant principals rated themselves in the “sometimes” range for the remaining eight subscales. Table 7 summarizes the descriptive statistics of self-perceptions of assistant principals regarding their instructional leadership practices.
Table 7
Descriptive Statistics of Assistant Principals’ Self-Perceptions of their Instructional Leadership
Domains of Instructional Leadership
Assistant Principal
n M SD SEM
Framing the school’s goals 69 3.00 0.908 0.11
Communicating the school’s goals 69 2.47 0.882 0.11 Supervising and evaluating instruction 68 3.11 0.514 0.06 Coordinating the curriculum 66 2.47 0.856 0.11 Monitoring student progress 62 2.47 0.910 0.12 Protecting instructional time 62 2.65 0.783 0.10
Maintaining high visibility 61 2.73 0.667 0.09
Providing teacher incentives 61 2.59 0.865 0.11 Promoting professional development 60 2.33 0.772 0.10 Developing and enforcing academic standards 60 3.21 0.844 0.11 Providing incentives for learning 60 2.57 1.046 0.14
Average for Assistant Principals 2.69 0.822 0.10
Principals gave assistant principals the highest ratings for instructional leadership. Regarding Research Question 2, average responses for principals ranged from 3.59 (framing the school’s goals) to 2.54 (protecting instructional time). The subscales of “promoting professional development” (M = 2.57) and “providing incentives for learning” (M = 2.61) received similar low average responses from principals. Principals rated assistant principal instructional leadership in the “frequently” range for four subscales and in the “sometimes” range for the remaining seven subscales. Neither assistant principals nor principals rated assistant principals’ instructional leadership in the “seldom” or “almost never” range for any subscales of behaviors. Table 8 summarizes the descriptive statistics of perceptions of principals regarding the instructional leadership practices of assistant principals.
Table 8
Descriptive Statistics of Principals’ Perceptions of Assistant Principal Instructional Leadership
As in Hallinger’s original PIMRS survey (1983), teachers gave the lowest average ratings for assistant principals’ instructional leadership. Regarding Research Question 3, teacher means ranged from 2.69 (developing and enforcing academic standards) to 1.89 (maintaining high visibility). The highest ratings from teachers, achieved in eight of the eleven subscales, were only in the “sometimes” range. Teachers rated assistant principals
Domains of Instructional Leadership
Principal
n M SD SEM Framing the school’s goals 30 3.59 0.516 0.09 Communicating the school’s goals 30 2.91 0.673 0.12 Supervising and evaluating instruction 29 3.49 0.459 0.09 Coordinating the curriculum 28 3.25 0.592 0.11 Monitoring student progress 28 2.88 0.773 0.15 Protecting instructional time 28 2.54 0.825 0.16 Maintaining high visibility 28 2.82 0.592 0.11 Providing teacher incentives 28 2.81 0.815 0.15 Promoting professional development 27 2.57 0.816 0.16 Developing and enforcing academic standards 27 3.18 0.963 0.19 Providing incentives for learning 27 2.61 1.154 0.22 Average for Principals 2.97 0.743 0.14
in the “seldom” range for the remaining three subscales. None of the rater groups reported means in the “almost always” or “almost never” categories. Table 9 summarizes the descriptive statistics of perceptions of teachers regarding the instructional leadership practices of assistant principals.
Table 9
Descriptive Statistics of Teachers’ Perceptions of Assistant Principal Instructional Leadership
Domains of Instructional Leadership
Teacher
n M SD SEM
Framing the school’s goals 1116 2.58 1.020 0.03 Communicating the school’s goals 1068 2.26 1.003 0.03 supervising and evaluating instruction 983 2.47 0.938 0.03 Coordinating the curriculum 887 2.33 1.032 0.04 Monitoring student progress 848 2.19 1.044 0.04 Protecting instructional time 836 2.07 0.987 0.03 Maintaining high visibility 827 1.89 0.928 0.03 Providing teacher incentives 823 1.97 1.127 0.04 Promoting professional development 797 1.96 0.936 0.03 Developing and enforcing academic standards 780 2.69 0.975 0.04 Providing incentives for learning 777 2.16 1.075 0.04 Average for Teachers 2.23 1.006 0.03
In summary, assistant principal mean responses to the survey questions ranged from a high of 3.21 (developing and enforcing academic standards) to a low of 2.33 (promoting professional development). The average of all mean scores for the eleven subscales of instructional leadership given by assistant principals was 2.69 – a low
“frequently” score on a four-point scoring scale. Mean scores from principals regarding the instructional leadership behavior of assistant principals ranged from 3.59 (framing the school’s goals) to 2.54 (protecting instructional time). The principals’ average of all mean scores for the elven subscales of instructional leadership was 2.97 – solidly in the
“frequently” range and the highest given by any of the three role groups. Teacher mean responses ranged from 2.69 (developing and enforcing academic standards) to 1.89 (maintaining high visibility). The average of all mean scores given by teachers was 2.23 – solidly in the “sometimes” range on a four-point scoring scale. Overall, regarding the instructional leadership practices of assistant principals, teachers gave the lowest scores of the three role groups including the lowest seven mean subscale scores among all role groups.
Research Question 4
The fourth research question explored whether school level, gender of the assistant principal, and role of the rater affected perceptions of assistant principals as instructional leaders. Accordingly, there were three pertinent segments of this research question.
School Level
A 1 X 3 ANOVA was used to analyze the portion of this question pertaining to school level. Specifically, the eleven subscales of instructional leadership were analyzed to determine if assistant principals’ instructional leadership was rated differently based upon the level of school (elementary school, middle school, or high school) to which they were assigned.
Means for elementary schools’ ratings of assistant principal instructional leadership ranged from a high of 2.80 (framing the school’s goals) and 2.72 (developing and
enforcing academic standards) to a low of 1.20 (maintaining high visibility). The highest average responses for middle schools were in the subscale of developing and enforcing academic standards (M = 2.74), while the lowest average responses were in the category of monitoring student progress (M = 1.85), promoting professional development (M = 1.87), and protecting instructional time (M = 1.88). For high schools, mean ratings for assistant principal instructional leadership ranged from a high of 2.78 (developing and enforcing academic standards) to a low of 1.20 (promoting professional development). “Developing and enforcing academic standards” rated among the highest categories for all three levels of schools. Both middle schools and high schools rated assistant principals the lowest in the category of “promoting professional development.” Table 10 summarizes the
descriptive statistics pertaining to perceptions of assistant principal instructional leadership based on school level.
Table 10
Descriptive Statistics for School Level
Domains of Instructional Leadership Level n M SD SEM Framing the school’s goals Elementary 575 2.80 0.994 0.04 Middle 322 2.47 1.058 0.06 High 318 2.50 0.983 0.06 Communicating the school’s goals Elementary 549 2.40 0.987 0.04 Middle 313 2.19 1.029 0.06 High 305 2.20 0.956 0.06 Supervising and evaluating instruction Elementary 505 2.60 0.956 0.04 Middle 296 2.42 0.975 0.06 High 279 2.55 0.834 0.05 Coordinating the curriculum Elementary 452 2.55 1.004 0.05 Middle 276 2.18 1.046 0.06 High 253 2.23 0.976 0.06 Monitoring student progress Elementary 432 2.52 0.960 0.05 Middle 262 1.85 1.023 0.06 High 244 2.12 1.033 0.07 Protecting instructional time Elementary 428 2.22 0.943 0.05 Middle 259 1.88 0.958 0.06 High 239 2.23 1.036 0.07 Maintaining high visibility Elementary 424 1.20 0.991 0.05
Middle 255 1.98 0.904 0.06 High 237 1.93 0.885 0.06 Providing teacher incentives Elementary 423 2.04 1.173 0.06 Middle 254 1.96 1.057 0.07 High 235 2.12 1.093 0.07 Promoting professional development Elementary 413 2.10 0.944 0.05 Middle 247 1.87 0.882 0.06 High 224 1.20 0.945 0.06 Developing and enforcing academic standards Elementary 400 2.72 0.975 0.05 Middle 243 2.74 0.978 0.06 High 224 2.78 0.984 0.07 Providing incentives for learning Elementary 398 2.30 1.074 0.05 Middle 243 2.12 1.065 0.07 High 223 2.12 1.103 0.07 Averages for School Level Elementary 2.31 1.000 0.05
Middle 2.15 0.998 0.06
High 2.18 0.984 0.06
Several statistically significant differences were found when computing one-way analysis of variance to investigate perceived differences based on school level. These data are displayed in Table 11. For the subscale of instructional leadership behavior labeled
“framing the school’s goals,” there was a statistically significant difference in the
perceived instructional leadership of the assistant principal [F(2, 1212) = 14.86, p = 0.00 ]. However, an analysis of the variance accounted for by school level resulted in an eta2 of 0.024. Therefore, although there was a statistically significant difference, it was not a meaningful difference because only 2.4% of the variance was attributed to school level; consequently, post hoc tests were not conducted.
For “communicating the school’s goals,” there was a statistically significant difference in the perceived instructional leadership of the assistant principal [F(2, 1164) = 6.09, p = 0.00]. An analysis of the variance accounted for by school level, however, resulted in an eta2 of 0.010. Therefore, although there was a statistically significant difference, it was not a practical difference since school level accounted for only 1.0% of the variance; consequently, post hoc tests were not conducted.
For “supervising and evaluating instruction,” there was a statistically significant difference in the perceived instructional leadership of the assistant principal [F(2, 1077) = 3.75, p = 0.02]. However, an analysis of the variance accounted for by school level resulted in an eta2 of 0.007. Therefore, although there was a statistically significant difference, it was not a meaningful difference because only 0.7% of the variance was attributed to school level; consequently, post hoc tests were not conducted.
For “coordinating the curriculum,” there was a statistically significant difference in the perceived instructional leadership of the assistant principal [F(2, 978) = 14.28, p = 0.00]. An analysis of the variance accounted for by school level, however, resulted in an
eta2 of 0.028. Therefore, although there was a statistically significant difference, it was not a practical difference since school level accounted for only 2.8% of the variance;
consequently, post hoc tests were not conducted.
For “monitoring student progress,” there was a statistically significant difference in the perceived instructional leadership of the assistant principal [F(2, 935) = 38.52, p = 0.00]. However, an analysis of the variance accounted for by school level resulted in an eta2 of 0.076. Therefore, although there was a statistically significant difference, it was not a meaningful difference because only 7.6% of the variance was attributed to school level; consequently, post hoc tests were not conducted.
For “protecting instructional time,” there was a statistically significant difference in the perceived instructional leadership of the assistant principal [F(2, 923) = 11.46, p = 0.00]. An analysis of the variance accounted for by school level, however, resulted in an eta2 of 0.024. Therefore, although there was a statistically significant difference, it was not a practical difference since school level accounted for only 2.4% of the variance;
consequently, post hoc tests were not conducted.
For “promoting professional development,” there was a statistically significant difference in the perceived instructional leadership of the assistant principal [F(2, 881) = 4.82, p = 0.01]. However, an analysis of the variance accounted for by school level resulted in an eta2 of 0.011. Therefore, although there was a statistically significant difference, it was not a meaningful difference because only 1.1% of the variance was attributed to school level; consequently, post hoc tests were not conducted.
Table 11
One-Way Analysis of Variance of Perceived Differences Based on School Level
Domains of Instructional Leadership df F p Eta2
Framing the school's goals
Between
Groups 2 14.86 *0.00 0.024
Within Groups 1212
Total 1214
Communicating the school's goals
Between
Groups 2 6.09 *0.00 0.010
Within Groups 1164
Total 1166
Supervising and evaluating instruction
Between
Groups 2 3.75 *0.02 0.007
Within Groups 1077
Total 1079
Coordinating the curriculum
Between
Groups 2 14.28 *0.00 0.028
Within Groups 978
Total 980
Monitoring student progress
Between
Groups 2 38.52 *0.00 0.076
Within Groups 935
Total 937
Protecting instructional time
Between
Groups 2 11.46 *0.00 0.024
Within Groups 923
Maintaining high visibility
Between
Groups 2 0.35 0.70 0.001
Within Groups 913
Total 915
Providing teacher incentives
Between
Groups 2 1.23 0.29 0.003
Within Groups 909
Total 911
Promoting professional development
Between
Groups 2 4.82 *0.01 0.011
Within Groups 881
Total 883
Developing and enforcing academic standards
Between
Groups 2 0.23 0.80 0.001
Within Groups 864
Total 866
Providing incentives for learning
Between
Groups 2 3.12 0.05 0.007
Within Groups 861
Total 863
*p < 0.05
Gender of the Assistant Principal
An independent samples t-test was used to analyze the portion of this research question related to the gender of the assistant principal. Specifically, a t-test was conducted
to determine if assistant principals were rated differently regarding their instructional leadership based upon whether they were male or female.
Male and female assistant principals received both their highest and lowest mean ratings in the same categories of instructional leadership. Of the eleven subscales of instructional leadership, both male and female assistant principals received their highest mean ratings in the category of “developing and enforcing academic standards” (Mmale =
2.83, Mfemale = 2.73). Similarly, both male and female assistant principals received their
lowest mean ratings in the subscales of “maintaining high visibility” (Mmale = 2.13, Mfemale
= 1.95) and “promoting professional development” (Mmale = 2.14, Mfemale = 1.99). Table 12
summarizes the descriptive statistics of the perceived differences in assistant principal instructional leadership based on gender of the assistant principal.
Table 12
Descriptive Statistics for Gender of the Assistant Principal
Domains of Instructional Leadership n M SD SEM Framing the school’s goals
Male 155 2.53 1.024 0.08 Female 1060 2.65 1.019 0.03 Communicating the school’s goals
Male 150 2.25 1.034 0.08 Female 1017 2.29 0.989 0.03 Supervising and evaluating instruction
Male 136 2.63 0.924 0.08 Female 944 2.52 0.935 0.03 Coordinating the curriculum
Male 123 2.41 1.001 0.09 Female 858 2.35 1.026 0.04 Monitoring student progress
Male 118 2.24 1.028 0.09 Female 820 2.23 1.038 0.04 Protecting instructional time
Male 116 2.22 0.975 0.09 Female 810 2.11 0.984 0.03 Maintaining high visibility
Male 115 2.13 0.927 0.09 Female 801 1.95 0.941 0.03 Providing teacher incentives
Male 114 2.32 1.036 0.12 Female 798 2.00 1.114 0.04 Promoting professional development
Male 112 2.14 0.906 0.09 Female 772 1.99 0.934 0.03 Developing and enforcing academic standards
Male 112 2.83 0.986 0.09 Female 755 2.73 0.976 0.04 Providing incentives for learning
Male 112 2.28 1.176 0.11 Female 752 2.19 1.067 0.04 Averages for Gender Male 2.36 1.002 0.09 Female 2.27 1.002 0.03
Data from the t-test analysis indicated that statistically significant differences in mean scores for male and female assistant principals occurred in only one of the eleven subscales of instructional leadership. In the subscale labeled “providing teacher
incentives,” there was a statistically significant difference in the ratings for instructional leadership (t = 2.83, p = 0.01) for male assistant principals (M = 2.32) and female assistant
more likely to participate in activities involving providing teacher incentives than are their female counterparts. However, an analysis of the variance accounted for by gender of the assistant principal resulted in a Cohen’s d coefficient of 0.30. Accordingly, although there was a statistically significant difference between the ratings of male and female assistant principals regarding providing teacher incentives, the importance of the difference was small (McMillan, 2004).
Differences were perceived in the remaining ten subscales between male and
female assistant principals regarding their instructional leadership. However, data indicated that these differences were not statistically significant. Table 13 summarizes the results of t-test analysis for the perceived differences in assistant principal instructional leadership based on gender of the assistant principal.
Table 13
Independent Samples t-Test of Perceived Differences Based on Gender of the Assistant Principal
Domains of Instructional Leadership df t p d
Framing the school’s goals 1213 -1.35 0.18 -0.1
Communicating the school’s goals 1165 -0.48 0.63 -0.0 Supervising and evaluating instruction 1078 1.29 0.20 0.1
Coordinating the curriculum 979 0.59 0.55 0.1
Monitoring student progress 936 0.08 0.93 0.0
Maintaining high visibility 914 1.91 0.06 0.2
Providing teacher incentives 910 2.83 *0.01 0.3
Promoting professional development 882 1.58 0.12 0.2 Developing and enforcing academic standards 865 0.99 0.32 0.1 Providing incentives for learning 862 0.83 0.41 0.1
*p < 0.05
Role of the Rater
A 1 X 3 ANOVA was used to analyze the portion of this question regarding role of the rater. Specifically, the eleven subscales of instructional leadership were analyzed to investigate the degree to which assistant principals’ instructional leadership ratings varied according to the role of the rater (assistant principal, principal, and teacher). Descriptive statistics pertaining to perceptions of assistant principals as instructional leaders based on role of the rater (assistant principal self-perceptions, principal perceptions, and teacher perceptions) are displayed in Tables 7, 8, and 9. More pertinent to this part of Research Question 4, the results of the one-way ANOVA comparing the means of these three role groups are shown in Table 14.
Table 14
One-Way Analysis of Variance of Perceived Differences Based on Role of the Rater
Domains of Instructional Leadership df F p Eta2
Framing the school's goals
Between
Groups 2 19.71 *0.00 0.032
Within
Groups 1212
Total 1214
Communicating the school's goals
Between
Groups 2 7.41 *0.00 0.013
Within
Groups 1164
Total 1166
Supervising and evaluating instruction
Between
Groups 2 32.30 *0.00 0.057
Within
Groups 1077
Total 1079
Coordinating the curriculum
Between
Groups 2 11.72 *0.00 0.023
Within
Groups 978
Total 980
Monitoring student progress
Between
Groups 2 8.02 *0.00 0.017
Within
Total 937
Protecting instructional time
Between
Groups 2 12.87 *0.00 0.027
Within
Groups 923
Total 925
Maintaining high visibility
Between
Groups 2 37.14 *0.00 0.075
Within
Groups 913
Total 915
Providing teacher incentives
Between
Groups 2 16.12 *0.00 0.034
Within
Groups 909
Total 911
Promoting professional development
Between
Groups 2 9.59 *0.00 0.021
Within
Groups 881
Total 883
Developing and enforcing academic standards Between Groups 2 10.97 *0.00 0.025 Within Groups 864 Total 866
Groups
Within
Groups 861
Total 863
*p < 0.05
Analysis of each subscale of assistant principal instructional leadership resulted in findings of statistically significant differences; these differences, however, were not meaningful. For the subscale labeled “framing the school’s goals,” there was a statistically significant difference in the perceived instructional leadership of the assistant principal [F(2, 1212) = 19.71, p = 0.00]. An analysis of the variance accounted for by role of the rater, however, resulted in an eta2 of 0.032. Although there was a statistically significant difference, it was not a practical difference since role of the rater accounted for only 3.2% of the variance; post hoc tests were not conducted because the variability among role of the raters was not significantly different.
For “communicating the school’s goals,” there was a statistically significant difference in the perceived instructional leadership of the assistant principal [F(2, 1164) = 7.41, p = 0.00]. However, an analysis of the variance accounted for by role of the rater resulted in an eta2 of 0.013; role of the rater accounted for only 1.3% of the variance. Because this has no meaningful significance, no post hoc tests were conducted.
For “supervising and evaluating instruction,” there was a statistically significant difference in the perceived instructional leadership of the assistant principal [F(2, 1077) =
32.30, p = 0.00]. An analysis of the variance accounted for by role of the rater, however, resulted in an eta2 of 0.057. Although there was a statistically significant difference, it was not a practical difference since role of the rater accounted for only 5.7% of the variance; accordingly, post hoc tests were not conducted.
For “coordinating the curriculum,” there was a statistically significant difference in the perceived instructional leadership of the assistant principal [F(2, 978) = 11.72, p = 0.00]. However, an analysis of the variance accounted for by role of the rater resulted in an eta2 of 0.023; role of the rater accounted for only 2.3% of the variance. Because the
variability among roles of the raters was not significantly different, no post hoc tests were